Page images
PDF
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][merged small]

Let us glance at the ordinary breakfast beverages of the eo le. P 1211, even if properly infused, is only a stimulant. It is not a nourishing beverage, and as usually decocted is wasby, trashy, and deleterious.

0n_[7'er, even when of the best, and prepared in perfection as ou will find in the East, where Mahornmedans are forbidden by their religion to use alcohol, is only a rarriiuc or heart stimulant. It increases for a short time the power of that organ without being in any sense of the word ii nourishing bevewgf.

Uacoa.—-The 0 nary cocoa is not by any means II. nourishing beverage. Its good qualities either in the English or foreign varieties are smothered in starch and sugar that induce and promote indigestion.

Dr. TibbIes' Vi- Cocoa is a nourishing beverage, containing four great restorers of vitality, Cocoa, Kola, Hope, and Malt. It stands out as a builder up of tissues, a promoter of vigour, and in short it has all the factors which make robust health. Being a deliciously flavoured beverage it

leascs the most fastidious palate. Its active plowers of giastase give tone to the stomach, and promote t e flow of gastric juice, and however indigestiblo the food taken with it at any meal, it acts as s. solvent and assimilative.

All the leading medical journals recommend Dr. Tibbles’ Vi-Cocoa, and Dr. G. H. Haslam writes:—“It gives me

rent pleasure in bearing testimony to the value of ViCocoa, a mixture of Malt, Hops, Kola, and Caracas Cocoa Extract. I consider it the very best preparation of the ' kind in the market, and, as a nourishing drink for children and adults, the finest that has ever been brought before the public. As a [ieneral beverage it excels all previous preparations. N0 ouse should be without it."

Dr. Tibbles' Vi-Cocoa can be obtained from all chemists, grocers, and stores, or from Dr. Tibblcs’ Vi-Cocoa, Limited, 60, 61 and 62, Bunhill-row, London, E.C._ _

As an unparalleled test of merit, a dainty sample tin of Dr. Tibbles Vi-Cocoawill be sent free on application to any address, if when writing (ii. postcard will do) the reader will name the “ Solicitors’ J ournaI.”

LIIIISIIALE PRINTING WIIIIKS,

LONBDALB BUILDINGS, 27, CHANCBRY LANE.

ALEXANDER rfi SHEPHEARD PRINTERS and PUBLISHERS.

BOOKS, PAMPHLETS, MAGAZINES,

NEWSPAPERS 8; PERIODICALS. And all General and Commercial Work.

E very description of Prin!ing~—/arga or small.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

Printers of THE SOLICITORS’ J OUBNAI. Newspaper. Authors advised with as to Printing and Publishing. Estimates and all information furnished. Uoillrizcls entered into.

[graphic]
[graphic]

S. FISHER. 188, Strand.

[graphic]
[graphic]

I

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

2 in. Fire resistin chambers, best

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 With 2 drawers and shelf. These are 5 to G inches less nside

measurement. lever lock, duplicate keys.

Fitted wig: Chubb's Lock, 7s. Gd. each extra.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[graphic]

IKGORPORATIIIJ

LAW SOCIETY.

LEGAL EDUCATION.

THE COUNCIL invite attention to the following scheme of education, adopted in 1892 with the object of affording assistance to Articled Clerks.

For the benefit of Clerks resident in London or who are able to attend, these classes are held and Tutors give advice and assistance at the Hall of the Law Society.

To those Clerks who are articlsd at a distance from large towns systematic instruction with advice and help is given, and a course of preparation through the post has been formulated.

POSTAL INSTRUCTION.

In the case of students who have not passed the Intermediate Examination the instruction is by means of monthly papers, and deals with the selected portions of Ste hen's Commentaries.

For those who have passed the Intermediate Examination instruction is afforded by fortnightly papers, and embraces the following subjects: Equity, Conveyancing, Common Law, Bankruptcy, Criminal and Magisterial Law, Probate, Divorce, Admiralty, and Ecclesiastical Law.

These papers both before and after the Intermediate Examinations are varied each year, so that students who may subscribe for more than one year's tuition receive additional assistance.

These courses may be commenced at any time, but the Tutors recommend that the Intermediate course should be commenced at an early stage of the Articles, and the Final course soon after the Intermediate Examination has been passed.

Books can be obtained from Messrs. Stevens & Sons, or other law lending library, for a subscription of a inea and a-half to cover the course of work for the Final Examination, oni§Stephen's Commentaries can be supplied to either Class of Postal Subscribers, at e. subscription of one guinea, on applicatirn to the Tutor, Dr. West.

CLASS INSTRUCTION.

Class instruction is also provided on the selected portions of Stephen's Commentaries and the subjects above named, and it is recommended that the classes should be joined after the expiration of a course of Postal instruction. Students can join the classes at any time, the fees being proportionate to the length of attendance.

Rooms are provided where subscribers may study, and books are supplied without extra charge.

Periodical test examinations are held by the Tutors.

The Classes for Intermediate Students are held in the Hall of the Society on three afternoons in each wrek during the following periods: August to November ; October to January ; Janus. ' to April ; March to June.

Students may subscribe for successive glasses.

Classes for Final Students are held at the Hall of the Society on four afternoons each week during the following periods: August to January; January to June.

These periods atford five mouths’ class preparation, and students are advised to subscribe for a full course, and certainly for not less than three months, otlierwise the work must necessarily be hurried.

Students may join the classes either before or after the Intermediate Examination without subscribing to the course oi Postal instruction, but it is recommended that they should avail themselves of both modes of instruction.

Subscribers to either Postal or Class instruction have the opportunity of consulting the Tutors upon the work of the course in personal interview or by letter at any time.

RESULTS AND HONOURS.

The results obtained have been satisfactory. At each of the last twelve examinations pupils have obtained honours, and the percentage of passes _is a high one, exceeding 85 per cent. of between two and three hundred pupils who last presented themselves for examination. It has happened on several occasions that all Class pupils have been successful, and the same has occurred in the case of subscribers to the Correspondence Courses.

TUTORS.

Equit , Conveyancing, Common Law, Bankruptcy-J. Cxnrnn HARRISON, 30, Bedgnd-row, \V.C.

Criminal and Magisterial Law, Probate, Divorce, Admiralty, and Ecclesiastical Law, Stephen's Commentaries-Lnosiinn H. \VssT, LL.D., 19, Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane, W.C.

Brfore Inter. Aflar Inter. FEES. Ezaniinalion. Examination.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Law Wigs and Gowns for Registrars, Town

Clerks, and Clerks of the Peace. Corporation Robes, Universttyand Clergy Gowns. J

ESTABLISHED ress. 94, OHANOERY LANE, LONDON. BREAKFAST

NUTRITIOUS.

F0R INVALIDS.

ESSENCE OF BEEF.
BEEF TEA,
MEAT JU/OE, 620..

[merged small][ocr errors][graphic]

AND SUPPER

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]

LAW REVERSIONARY INTEREST SOCIETY LIMITED

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

SHAW & SONS,

LAW STATIONERS, PRINTERS, AND PUBLISHERS. GENERAL AND MANUFACTURING STATIONERS. DEALERS IN PAROHMENTS.

iii

6, 7, s, AND 9, FETTER LANE; ¢ AND 10, CRANE comm", LONDON, E.C.

TF8 01.0281‘ .2 WEAL THIES1‘ Exls TING MOB TGA GB INSURANCE OFFICE.
THE LAW GUARANTEE AND TRUST SOCIETY,
LIMITED.
SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL - £1,000,000. PAID-UP - £100,000.

FIDELITY Guananrnas or ALL xmns. ADMINISTRATION AND Lurmcr Bonus. Moxroscr-:, DEBENTURE, LICENSE, AND Conrmosncv Iusunancs. TRus'rsnsI~III>s FOR DEBENTURE-HOLDERS, &c.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][graphic][graphic][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][graphic][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

VOL. XLIL, N0. IO. The Solicitors’ Journal and Reporter.

LONDON, JANUARY 8, I898.

“,,' The Editor cannot undertake to return rejected contributions, and copies should be kept oi all articles sent by writers who are not on the regular staff of the IOURNAL.

Contents. Cuaslx-r Torres .............. .... .......... .. 151 Leon. Nlws .................................. .. 164

Tm: Buns Ix "BIm.I.sr’s Cass" .... .. 159 Tue Luna TRANSFER Ac-r, 1897. Bsvilws ..................................... .. 161 Coos-r Parsss ......................... .. 161 Wnnmru Ur Noriols

[ocr errors]
[graphic]

. .... .. 161 Cssmroas’ Norwss ...... .. Law Soeirrxls .............................. .. 164 Bunurrov No-non ................... .. 174

164 165 173 173

[graphic]

Cases Reported this Week.

In the Solicitors’ Journal.

[merged small][graphic][merged small]

Royal College of Music (Appellants) v.
The Vestry of the United Parishes of
St. Margaret and St. John the Evan-
gelist, Westminster (Respondents)... 162

[graphic]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]
[ocr errors]

CURRENT TOPICS. WE PRINT elsewhere the short summary of changes in Land Registry practice, entailed by the new Act and Rules, to which we referred last week as in course of preparation.

Tm; APPEAL list for the ensuing sittings contains 165 appeals, of which 46 are from the Chancery Division; 4 from the Probate, &c., Division; 91 from the Queen's Bench Division; 4 appeals in bankruptcy; and 20 cases in the New Trial Paper. The total of appea s at the commencement of the last sittings was 159, and a year ago 127.

In ms Chancery Division the anlinns and matters before the five judges comprise 200 before Nomu, J. ; 166 before STIRLING, J.; 99 before Knxnwmn, J .; 170 before Roman, J.; and 84 before Brmwn, J . ; making a total of 719 actions and matters, as compared with 748 at the commencement of the last sittings. There are 80 winding-up matters before WRIGHT, J .

[ocr errors]

Tan Qun1m’s BENCH lists contain 831 actions entered for trial, as against 906 at the commencement of the last sittings and 660

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][graphic]

Tun rnnsnur condition of the controversy on the Land Transfer Act, I897, affords a singular commentary on the representations which were made by the promoters of that measure, that the country was eagerly desirous of obtaining compulsory registration of title, and especially on their airy assumption that London would gladly consent to be the experimental area. The London County Council, before coming to any decision, very rudently resolved to request the o inion of the vestries and other public bodies (including, we understand, the Incorporated Law Society) as to the advisability of trying the Act within the Metropolitan area; and the result has been

[graphic]
[graphic]

that already several of the leading vestries have pronounced decisively against such trial. "I'lie“ Building Societies Association (as we learn from the Tinwe) have stated to the London County Council that it is very undesirable to make the county of London the first district to be experimented on ; and we have reason to believe that the report of the Institute of Bankers does not greatly difier in effect. And it is now tolerably well known throughout the country that the Council of the Incorporated Law Society have resolved, in reply to the enquiry of the county council, to re%%rt_in the same sense. We do not think that this flGl|l0)I_ on e part of the Council should be ascribed to any desire to favour the interests of London members of the Society in opposition to those of country members. The Council being asked to state their opinion on t_he specific question of whether the experiment should be tried in London, and knowing the almost universal opinion of London solicitors on the subject, could hardly decline to express their view. The facts that the promoters of the Bill have refused to observe the pledge which was given in the House of Commons on their behalf, that the first area should be the county of London e'.r0lu-site of the City, and have (as Mr. Gi=.1)oa’s letter to the T177108 shews) violated an undertaking given in the House that no steps should be taken- before the lst of January, 1898, towards putting the provisions of the Act in force, have made a material difference in the views of many of those who at first thought that the understanding as to the London area should be observed.

THE DECISION of BYRNE, J., in Himl v. Fripp (46 W. R. 125) forms an important addition to the series of cases on the power of an undischarged bankrupt to deal with property devolving upon him after the bankruptcy. Under section 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, such property is divisible among the creditors of the bankrupt, and under ection 5'} it would seem that it vests in the trustee in bankruptcy; but in pursuance of the construction placed upon the earlier Bankruptcy Acts (see Herbert v. Sayer, 5 Q. B. 965) it was held in Cohen v.' Jllftclzell (38 W. R. 551, 25 Q. B. D. 262) that, until the trustee intervenes to claim the property, tlie__lganki{upt is at liberty to deal with it, and transactions respecting‘ it entered“ into with any person dealing with the bankrupt bomifide and for value, whether with or without knowledge of the bankruptcy, are valid against the trustee. In Re New Land Dc-velopmant Association v. Gray (40 \V. R. 295, 551 ; 1892, 2 Ch. 138) it was seen that this doctrine would lead to confusion if it was applied to real property, and freeholds were held to be excluded, though subsequently in Ra Clayton §" Barclay (43 W. R. 549 ; 189-5, 2 Ch. 212) it was decided that this exclusion did not extend to leaseholds. In the case before BYRNE, J ., the question arose whether the rule applied so as to protect an assignment by the bankrupt of an equitable interest in a trust fund, the interest having devolved upon him after the commencement of the bankruptcy. Prinui facie it may be difiicult to justify any dealing with property of this nature without the concurrence of the trustee, but the terms in which the rule was laid down in Colwn v. Michell are clearly wide enough to include it, and it is important, as Crirrrr, J ., pointed out in Ra Clay/lo1i§;' Barclay, not to introduce any exception unnecessarily. “ Dis ositions of personal or other property,” said Far, L.J., in (701512 v. Hitclwll, “ made by the bankrupt to a person who receives them in good faith and for value must be valid ” ; and Lord ESHER, M.R., in discussing the rule, spoke of “ property ” without any qualification.‘ Freehold estate has, as just stated, been held to be an exception for reasons incident to the conveyance and vesting of such property, but in declining to extend the exemption to leaseholds, Ci1I'1'rY, J., intimated very s~at no further infringement should be made upon the rule, and there seems to be no special reason for exempting from its operation an equitable interest in a trust fund. In Hunt v. E-zpp, accordingly, BYRNE, J., held that an assignment

by the bankrupt of such an interest was protected.

As A condition, however, of the validity of a dealing by an undisoharged bankrupt with property which he has acquired since the bankruptcy, it is essential that there should be bane fides on the part of the person dealing with the bankrupt. It

[graphic]

will be seen, said Lord ESHER, M.R., in Cohen v. Jlfilalzvll, from the wording of the rule, “that the stress of bona fidcs is laid entirely and solely on the person dealing with the bankrupt; and if he has dealt in good faith, the question of whether the bankrupt, as between himself and his creditors, is also dealing in good faith is immaterial.” It is, of course, an immense advantage to the person seeking to support a transaction of this nature to be relieved of the necessity of entering into the question of the conduct of the bankrupt towards his creditors, and his path is rendered still easier by the decision of Brass, J ., in Hunt v. Frfpp (supra). To satisfy the requirement of loam fides it is suflicient that the party should have been dealing honestly, and his honesty cannot be impugned merely upon the grounds that the trustee in bankruptcy was not informed prior to the transaction that the property in question had devolved upon the bankrupt, and that the party was aware of the trustee’s want of information. It seems to follow, indeed, from the object of the rule, which is to give the bankrupt full power over the property until the trustee intervenes that the party with whom the bankrupt deals shall not Be bound to notice in any way the title, whether actual or potential, of the trustee. Of course, until the trustee has notice of the acquisition of the property he can take no steps to intervene, but this does not appear to affect the bankrupt’s power of disposition. The requirement of good faith on the part of the person dealing with the property insures that the property shall not be lost to the bankrupt’s estate without some adequate consideration, and in this manner the creditors are protected. Under the circumstances of Hunt v. Fr-app, Brena, J., held that the assignees of the bankrupt’s interest in the trust fund took it honestly, notwithstanding that they knew that the trustee in bankruptcy was not aware of such interest, and, consequently, since the assignment was valid, they were entitled to call upon the trustees of the fund to pay over the money.

THE Locar. Government Board are to be congratulated on having begun the new year with the issue of permanent rules for the conduct of elections of local authorities under the Local Government Act, 1894. Up to the present time special rules have been issued relating to these elections in each particular year; the first set of rules being applicable only to the first general elections under the Act, which were held. in December, 1894; the second to the general elections in 1896 ; and the third to those of 1897. In 1895 the Board issued orders applicable to elections to fill casual vacancies in boards of guardians and urban and rural district councils, and further orders to meet the case of elections rendered necessary by the constitution of new urban or rural districts, or by the increase in the number of councillors or guardians for any district or union. These orders of 1895 merely applied the rules of 1894, with the necessary modifications and adaptations. The result was that, while the general elections in each year have been conducted under rules framed with reference to that year only, elections to fill casual vacancies and elections of members of new district councils, and of additional members of boards of guardians and district councils, have been regulated by the rules of 1894 which were obsolete except so far as they were made applicable to these special elections by the orders of 1895. This was unsatisfactory, and considerable skill was required to enable the oflicials coucerned to discover the rules ap licable to a given election. The new rules provide both for the ordinary elections and, in the case of district councils and guardians, for the special elections dealt with by the now repealed orders of 1895. In the case of parish councils, casual vacancies are filled by co-optation, and the elections of newly-constituted councils are still regulated by separate orders. The new rules fix the dates for the ordinary annual elections by reference to the calendar: the polls, where necessary, are to be held on the first Monday in April, or, if that is Easter Monday, then on the last Monday in March; and power is, very properly, reserved to the county council of altering the date for special reasons, to the Saturday preceding or the Tuesday or Wednesday following the Monday in question. The annual parish meetin s, at which the ordinary elections of parish councillors are oongluded where 110 poll is necessary, are to be held on the first Monday after the 10th of March, or, if Easter Monday falls on the first Monday

[ocr errors]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

in April, then on the first Monday after the 3rd of March; and the county council has a similar power to vary the dates within certain limits. In the case of casual vacancies in district councils and boards of guardians, the clerk to the body in question is to fix the date of the election ; in the case of new districts and additional members of existing district councils and boards of guardians, the date is to be fixed by the returning ofiicer for some day within six weeks after the order constituting the district or increasing the number of members comes into operation. As to the general conduct of the elections, the new rules do not appear to differ substantially from the rules under which these elections have hitherto been conducted.

A NOVEL point was raised last week at the Eastbourne policecourt. It appears that there is a shooting gallery on the pier, at which, for one penny a shot, persons shoot at a mark for small prizes. It fact it is just such a gallery as may be seen at any seaside place, at any fair, or on any racecourse throughout the country. The attendant, however, at the Eastbourne Pier gallery was summoned by the Inland Revenue authorities for carrying a gun without a licence, contrary to the provisions of the Gun Licence Act, 1870. The terms of this Act are very strict, and the exceptions are very narrow, and are not material to the present case. Section 7 provides that “every person who shall use or carry a gun elsewhere than in a dwelling-house or the curtilage thereof, without having in force a licence duly granted to him under this Act, shall forfeit the sum of ten pounds.” Also, by section 2, the term “gun” is defined as including “ a firearm of any description, and an air gun, or any other kind of gun from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged.” These words seem extremely plain, and it was held by the High Court in the case of Campbell v. Iladlvy (40 J . P. 756) that a small pocket pistol, seven inches long, which was little more than a mere toy, and was used to shoot a minute shot at a mark, was a “gun” within the meaning of the Act, and that the small boy who was found using the weapon was liable to a penalty for so doing without a licence. If this little pistol was within the Act, it seems quite clear that the guns used in shooting galleries are also within the Act. Hence, to use or carry a gun anywhere except in a dwelling-house or the curtilage thereof seems to be an offence. It is an offence in the proprietor of the gallery, or his assistant, who hands the weapon to the customer. It is also an ofience in the latter to use the gun, as he clearly does when he shoots at the mark. Every boy, therefore, -who tries his luck in one of these galleries at a country fair is liable to a penalty of ten pounds. This practically means that these galleries are unlawful, and it is surprising to think how long the law has been infringed with the utmost impunity. This conclusion seems almost ridiculous, but it is a plain deduction from the Act, and in the light of the recent proceedings it seems to be the view of the advisers of the Inland Revenue. This view of the law, however, was too much for the common sense of the Eastbourne magistrates, who, apparently, could not believe that it was possible for “ old Father Antic, the law,” to be so absurd, and so they dismissed the case. If the authorities are in earnest, they will take the opinion of the High Court on the point. If they are not in earnest, then it was a wanton act of oppression to proceed against the Eastbourne gallery. It is submitted that a great many absurdities might be avoided, without loss to the revenue, and with advantage to the public, by substituting for the existing personal licence to carry a gun a small annual tax on every gun used or carried by any person. The first year’s tax ought to be payable by the gunmaker who sells tgp gun, who should be able to recover the amount from the pure aser along with the price. This could not appreciably affect the price of guns of any value, and ought not to injure the gun trade, exce t in so far as that trade is hurtful to the public. It would, however, materially afiect the price of those cheap revolvers and pistols which are bought for a mere trifle, and which are so often heard of in the police-courts and at coroners’ inquests. Such a result could hardly fail to be

beneficial.

Is onnna to provide against the acts of a board of directors

[graphic]
[graphic]

being invalid in consequence of some technical irregularity in the appointment of any of its members, it is usual to introduce in the articles of association a clause expressly validating anything done by the board under such circumstances, and, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dawson v. African, (yo, Co. (Limited) (46 W. R. 132), such a clause will be construed liberally even though it may not be easy to bring the case in question within its exact terms. There the clause, following the common form, provided that all acts done at any meeting of the directors should, notwithstanding that it should be afterwards discovered that there was some defect in the appointment of the directors or of a person acting as a director, or that they or any of them were disqualified, be as valid as if every such person had been duly appointed, and was qualified to be a director. The articles also provided that the qualification of a director should be the holding of shares of the nominal value of £200, and that the office of a director should be vacated if he ceased to hold the necessary qualification. There were, it appeared, three directors, A., B , and 0., all of them originally duly appointed and duly qualified. On the 17th of June last O. transferred all his shares, and he had no qualification till the 23rd, when he again acquired the necessary number of shares. On the 2-1th he was present with A. and B. at a board meeting and acted as a director. A. and B. had power to fill up any casual vacancy, but they did not pass any resolution reappointing 0., and there was, indeed, no evidence that they were aware that he had become disqualified. Subsequently A., B., and C. passed a resolution making a call, and it was contended that this call was invalid by reason of O. being no longer a director. Undoubtedly he had, by the fact of parting with his shares, ceased to be a director, and there had been no express fresh appointment, so that it could be plausibly argued that it was not a case of a mere defect in the appointment which the article coul_d cure. But this technical construc-' tion of the article was not accepted by the Court of Appeal. A. and B. did in fact assume G. to be a director, and, had they known of the circumstances, would doubtless have passed the necessary resolution reappointing him. The defect, therefore, whether strictly within the terms of the clause or not, was exactly of the nature which the clause was intended to provide against, and the call was held to have been validly made.

THE RULE IN SHELLEI”S CASE’.

Tun application of the rule in Shelley/’s case has, in consequence of the decisions of the House of Lords in Jcaeon v. Wright (2 Bli. 1) and Roddy V.F1'£:_q¢'rr1l¢l (6 H. L. Gas. 823) become so well settled that the controversy which at the end of the last century seriously disturbed the equanimity of FEARNE and Hanoaavn has been well-nigh forgotten. The question has arisen again, however, in the House of Lords in Van Gruttm v. Forwell (1897, A. C. 658), and has furnished Lord MAONAGHTEN with the opportunity of recalling the ancient dispute in an interesting and amusing judgment.

The rule enunciated in Shelley/’s cases (1 Rep., p. 104a), though not then for the first time established, is as follows: “It is a rule in law, when the ancestor by any gift or conveyance takes an estate of freehold, and in the same gift or conveyance an estate is limited, either mediately or immediately, to his heirs in fee or in tail, that always in such cases ‘the heirs ’ are words of limitation of the estate and not words of purchase.” To this statement it may be added that any expression which imports the whole succession of inheritable blood has the same effect in bringing the rule into operation as the word “ heirs ” (see Lord M.icNAciITnn’s judgment, p. 668), and that the rule applies as much to limitations in a devise as to limitations in a deed. It was a limitation in a devise which, in 1769, produced the revolt against the rule in the decision of the King’s Bench in Perrin v. Blake (4 Burr. 2579, 1 Coll. Jur. 283), and which led the eminent real property lawyers above mentioned to apply themselves strenuously to its defence. Was the rule an absolute rule of law, to be applied inflexibly without regard to the apparent intention of the testator; or was it simply a rule of construction which must give way to clear evidence of intention ? Lord MANSFIELD and the majority

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »